BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

 Complaint No.407 of 2021

      Date of Instt. 07.12.2021

      Date of Decision: 09.08.2023

Kuldeep Singh Badwal and Mrs. Devi Rani Badwal R/o MIG Flat 451, Housing Board, Urban Estate-1, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       ACA PUDA-JDA, Opp. DC Office, PUDA Complex, SCO-41,       Jalandhar.

2.       CA PUDA Mohali –PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, Mohali, SAS           Nagar, PIN 16002.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:         Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj            (President)

 Smt. Jyotsna                           (Member)

Present:       Complainant in Person. 

                   Sh. A. S. Saini, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 and 2.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the social housing scheme no.11112/1994, was financed by Hudco in 1994- for the construction of 72 MIG Flats in Jalandhar, Urban Estate-1, Housing Board Colony in 1994-By PUDA JDA Jalandhar. Hudco loan to PUDA was sanctioned on 11.03.1994. Total Loan of Rs.82.80 lacs was released to PUDA in 3-1996. Rate of interest applied by Hudco was fixed 14.5%, w.e.f. 3/1996 till 2000, for the period of loan 5 years. Full Repayment of loan to Hudco was done by Puda w.e.f. 30/6/1996 to 30/1/2000, with 14.5% intt. rate .The scheme was closed on 28/1/2000 by hudco and puda. Hudco rate of interest was fixed 14.5% wef 3/1996 to 6/2000, But puda charged the higher rate of intt. 17%, on the EMI wef. 7/1996 to 6/2009. This is unfair and illegal in violation of term 7 of allotment, Social housing scheme norms, and hudco rates. MIG Flats were allotted in 6/1996 and cost was increased from 2.15 lac to 381800/- in 1996. Flat Cost was refixed as per high court stay in 1997 at Rs 298400/.45% [ Rs 134280/ was paid in advance to take possession in 1996-97.-under CA puda letter of 3/1997, and 55% cost [Rs 164120/] was taken by puda as EMI @ 2617 with 17% intt. rate, said to be as per hudco rates in 1996-97, Under term 7 of allotment. while the Hudco charged 14.5% intt. Hence term 7 of allotment was violated wilfully and illegally by puda, by charging 17% intt on EMI against hudco rate of 14.5%. 8. The Term 7 of allotment allowed the review time to time as per Hudco rates during the EMI period of 13 years w.e.f. 1996 to 2009. While the loan period was 3/1996 to 1/2000 only as per Hudco and puda agreement of 1994. Hence intt. rate after 2000, must be as per GOI policy, hudco and State bank of india for the social housing scheme. But puda charged high 17% intt. W.e.f. 2000 to 2009 unfairly. PUDA applied 17% intt wef 7/1996 on the EMI, under term 7 of allotment and the Intt on EMI was never reviewed as per hudco rates wef 1996 to 2009.Hudco charged 14.5% only for the period of loan wef 3/1996 to 1/2000. [Syears]. But Puda never reduced the intt rates after 2000 even, as per GOI Policy of home finance wef 2000 to 2009 and as per nationalized bank home finance rates in 2000-2009, and Hudco rates in 2000-2009. Liability of intt. ended in 1/2000 to hudco, hence puda charging very high 17% intt on EMI w.e.f. 2000 to 2009 was illegal,unfair and never reviewed under term 7, after 2000 as per Hudco and GOI policy. Higher 17% intt. above hudco 14.5% wef 1995 to 2000 was also illegal malafide unfair. Further puda charged 14.5% to 17% intt rate wef 1994 to 1996 also unfairly when loan was taken by puda in 3/1996 from Hudco. Puda increased the Intt. rates from 14.5 % to 17% in 1994-1996, said to be as per increasing rates of hudco. Infact hudco rate of intt was fixed wef 3/1996.Then intt 17% was higher for the period of EMI wef 1996 to 2009, when loan was fully repaid in 2000 by puda. The intt.rate on EMI should have been reduced as per the GOI policy on home finance.wef 2000 onwards.[ 12% to 8% in 2000 to 2009.] after the hudco loan period of 1995 to 2000. Hence the liability of intt passed on to allottees was more than the legally required amount and intt rate. Lability of intt. was borne by the allottees wef 1994 to 1996, and 1996 to to 2009. This violation of term 7 and and higher 17% intt. on EMI without review in 13 years caused financial harms and loss to allottees, as liability imposed was more than the required limit under term 7, Hudco loan intt 14.5% wef 1996 to 2000,,and GOI intt. rates in 2000-2009 period, Unfairly and illegally. Additional charges of 10% profit and 12% adm. charges were also added to the cost and EMI as such, in violation of the GOI social housing scheme norms, which caused more EMI sum and intt payment being unfair, restrictive and illegal in violation of term 7, hudco rates, social scheme norms, which did not allow extra charges of 22% [10+12] on the cost, EMI and for intt. calculation. Hence refund of 22% cost is required wef 1996. The Balance payment after 6/2006, was made by us to save very high 17% intt on EMI, as the Balance sum figure was denied to us since 2001. Denial of balance information wef 2001 to 2006 was malafide to cause loss to us, by 17% intt.on EMI wef 2000 to 20006.after hudco loan period ended in 2000. Balance was paid in 2007 after the information was given by the puda under the RTI act in 2007, despite many requests since 2001 for the balance payment to puda. This delay since 2001 caused financial damages to us wef 2001 to 2006, and then late information in 2007 malafide to cause financial loss to us wef 2001 to 2006.As loan was repaid by puda in 1/2000, Balance information in 2001 requested to save 17% intt on EMI was fully justified, but denial of balance sum information till 2007 was malafide unfair causing financial harms to us by unfairly and forcibly applied 17% intt rate on EMI wef 2001 to 2006, despite our legal option to pay the balance as per choice under the term 7,in 2001 as such, but delayed till 2007 by puda malafide. PUDA did not take any action on our urgent requests since 2001 for the balance payment and refund of excess sum taken during 1996-2001, and 2001 to 2006 as 17% intt. on EMI. vide aca and ca letters of 2019 and 2020, our emails admitted therein, and last notice under CPA on date 09/11/2021.-Hence this complaint and cause of action. 7. Puda did not inform and never replied for these unfair high 17% intt. rates, wef 1994 to 1996. and 1996 to 2009. Despite letter of CA and ACA puda of 2019 December, our emails and letters 2019 and 2020 were never replied and no relief or redress was given till date; hence this complaint. last notice under CPA was sent as email-dt 09/11/2021 but not replied by puda and as such necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to refund of Rs.32880/ [due to 2.5% higher intt w.e.f. 7/1996 to 6/2006 for 120 EMI]. with 24% intt w.e.f. 1996 till payment, under the term 8 and 9 of allotment and to refund of Rs 83996/-[the 22% cost,22% of 381800/-83,996/ as adm. and profit charges applied by puda in 1996 against social housing scheme) with 24 % intt rate wef 1996 till payment and to refund of Rs 24327/-[as intt. rate difference during 2000 to 2006 Period, difference between 14.5% and average 10% rate on home finance of hudco and GOI during 2000 to 2006], with 24 % intt wef 2000 till payment under term 8 and 9 of allotment and further OPs be directed to pay a compensation for financial harms, harassment, mental agony in old age [under sr. citizens act and CPA,], upto Rs 50 lacs, be imposed on the puda for unfair restrictive trade practices in violation of term 7 and hudco rates. GOI social housing scheme norms since 1996. and Unfair denial of balance information w.e.f. 2001 to 2007 to impose 17% intt on us during 2001 to 2006 EMI period with denial of 10% rebate benefit on balance payment since 2001 to 2006 unfairly and malafide.[ total loss of 27%] and to pay the cost of the complaint Rs 5000/ be allowed, in the interest of justice under CPA and Sr. Citizens Act.

2.                Notice of the complaint was sent to the OPs and accordingly, OPs No.1 and 2 appeared through its counsel, but despite availing numerous opportunities, the OPs failed to file written statement and lastly the defence of OPs No.1 and 2 was struck off, vide order dated 19.04.2022.

3.                In order to prove his case, the complainant himself tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CA alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C10 and closed the evidence.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the written arguments submitted by complainant as well as case file very minutely.

6.                It is admitted and proved fact that MIG Flat 72, Urban Estate-I, Housing Board Colony, Jalandhar was allotted to Arun Kumar Sachdeva on 27.06.1996 and the complainant has purchased the flat from Arun Kumar. The complainant has alleged that Hudco loan was sanctioned to the PUDA on 11.03.1994 with 14.5% interest w.e.f. 3/1996 to 2000. The grievance of the complainant is that the Hudco rate of interest was fixed as 14.5%, but the OP has charged the higher rate       of interest i.e. 17% on the EMI w.e.f. 7/1996 to 06.02.2009. The complainant has also produced on record the final order passed by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court on 12.01.2015 passed by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta. As per this order, the price of allotment of MIG Flat was fixed as Rs.3,81,800/-, which was earlier fixed by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court as Rs.2,98,400/- by giving interim relief. The complainant has sought the refund of Rs.32,880/- as the OP has charged 17% interest on the EMI from the complainant. The complainant has not produced on record any document in the shape of agreement between the complainant or the previous allottee and the OP to show that the rate of interest was fixed as 14.5% between the complainant/original allottee and the OP. This is the matter interse between the Hudco and the OP regarding the sanctioning of loan and charging of interest.

7.                The complainant has further alleged that the OP has wrongly charged Rs.83,996/- from the complainant as administrative and profit charges in 1996 against Social Housing Scheme in 1996. The complainant has not produced on record any allotment letter to show that whether there was any such condition of charging as administrative and profit charges or not nor there is any detail of the amount charged by the OP to show that whether it was inclusive of any charges or not or whether they could charge this amount or not. The complainant has alleged the charging of this amount only on presumptions.

8.                The complainant has further alleged that the scheme was closed on 28.01.2000 by Hudco and the PUDA, but the PUDA kept on charging 17% interest on the EMI from the complainant till 2006. He has further alleged that at that time, the bank rate of interest was reduced from 14.5% to 8% and on an average, it was 10% for this period, but the PUDA has wrongly charged the interest as 17% from the complainant. But in support of his contention, the complainant has not produced on record any document to show that there was any agreement between the complainant and the OP regarding the charging of the interest. He has also not produced on record any document to show that at that time, the bank rate of interest was reduced from 14.5% to 8% and on an average, it was 10% for this period. All these allegations and contentions are vague contentions. Even the general guidelines filed on record by the complainant, nowhere shows that the OP and Hudco ever signed the same or he has not produced on record any document to show that any terms and condition was settled between the OP and Hudco. So, from all the angles the complainant has failed to establish his case and thus, the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same is dismissed with no order of costs. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

9.                Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated                              Jyotsna                        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

09.08.2023                    Member                                 President